"'''  ""WarfSdd  Library 

The  Iniquity  of  Chris- 
tian Missions  in  China 


By  ROBERT  E/SPEER 

Secretary  of  the  Presbyterian 
Board  of  Foreign  Missions. 


The  Board  of  Foreign 
Missions  of  ihe 
Presbyterian  Church 
in  the  IJ.  S.  A. 

156  Fifth  Avenue 
New  York 


¥■ 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2016 


https://archive.org/details/iniquityofchristOOspee 


THE  INIQUITY  OF  CHRISTIAN 
MISSIONS  IN  CHINA 


By  Robert  E.  Speer 

Secretary  of  the  Presbyterian  Board  of  For- 
eign Missions. 


There  appeared  a few  days  ago,  in  The 
New  York  Times,  an  article  by  Mr.  Sydney 
Brooks,  entitled  “Regulation  of  Missionaries 
in  China.”  Its  main  propositions  were  that 
missionaries  have  no  right  to  be  in  the  inte- 
rior of  China,  and  that,  whether  there  or  on 
the  coast,  they  are  supported  only  by  foreign 
arms,  that  they  are  ignorant,  untactful  and 
troublesome,  and  doing  not  a little  evil,  and 
that  they  are  responsible  for  the  present  diffi- 
culties. The  remedy  proposed  is  that  mis- 
sionaries should  be  deprived  of  their  foreign 
protection,  and  even  of  their  foreign  citizen- 
ship. 

A good  deal  of  this  sort  of  thing  has  ap- 
peared in  the  newspapers  lately.  It  is  easy 
to  write,  for  it  requires  no  patient  study  of 
facts,  and  it  pleases  many  people,  who  are 
not  reluctant  to  find  reasons  for  refraining 
from  supporting  the  missionary  enterprise. 
And  it  is  in  the  main  harmless.  Indeed,  it  is 


encouraging  in  a way,  for  it  shows  that  some 
who  would  be  glad  to  pass  missions  b ' as  un- 
important and  ineffectual  are  forced  to  con- 
fess their  power.  Such  articles  are  scarcely 
worth  answering,  save  to  call  attention  now 
and  then  to  their  extravagances  and  to  make 
them  an  occasion  for  setting  a little  more 
clearly  before  the  public  the  significance  and 
character  of  Christian  missions. 

Mr.  Brooks’s  article  especially  would  not 
call  for  notice  if  it  were  not  for  its  plausi- 
bility and  the  publicity  it  has  received.  It  is 
not  original,  it  is  not  intelligent,  and  it  is  not 
true.  It  is  in  part  a condensation  of  Mr. 
Alexander  Michie’s  books  on  ‘ ‘ Missionaries  in 
China,”  and  “China  and  Christianity,”  with 
scant  credit  given  to  Mr.  Michie,  and  with  lit- 
tle of  tL’*  “openness  of  mind”  which  the 
author  cr  fits  to  Mr.  Michie,  and  which  saves 
that  stringent  critic  from  the  unpleasant 
spirit  and  the  indiscriminate  sneers  of  Mr. 
Brooks,  and  from  some  of  his  blunders.  “The 
Chinese,”  he  says,  for  example,  “cannot  for 
a moment  be  brought  to  believe  that  women 
who  . . . worship  in  the  same  church  along 
side  of  men  can  possibly  be  moral.”  There 
are  tens  of  thousands  of  Chinese  temples 
which  testify  against  this  judgment.  There 
are  no  separate  temples,  or  hours  of  worship 
for  men  and  women  in  China.  “ Men  and 
women,”  as  a correspondent  of  The  China 
Mail  writes,  “ come  and  go  (in  the  temples), 
4 


acquaintances  and  absolute  strangers  elbow- 
ing each  other,  rubbing  against  each  other, 
tens  and  scores  and  hundreds  of  them.”  That 
has  been  Chinese  usage,  and  is  not  regarded 
as  an  outrage  on  ethical  propriety.  As  a 
matter  of  fact,  Christian  worship  is  more  or- 
derly, more  ethically  correct  than  the  wor- 
ship in  Chinese  temples.  Let  any  traveler 
attend  the  most  popular  temples  in  Canton, 
for  example,  and  then  any  Christian  chapel  or 
church,  many  of  which  have  partitions  sepa- 
rating the  sexes,  and  contrast  them.  It  is 
true  that  the  infamous  publications  sent  out 
by  Chou  Han  from  Hunan  made  some  such 
criticism  as  that  of  Mr.  Brooks;  but  it  was 
with  slanderous  and  malicious  purpose,  and 
the  temples  of  Hunan  daily  refuted  his  false- 
hood. 

Each  of  Mr.  Brooks’s  propositions  is  sur- 
rounded by  such  misinformation.  He  alleges 
that  the  missionary’s  “presence  in  the  inte- 
rior is  in  itself  a violation  of  a solemn  com- 
pact.” What  compact  ? Eesidence  and  ac- 
quisition of  property  by  missionaries  in  the 
interior  of  China  are  guaranteed  by  clear 
treaty  provisions,  confirmed  by  imperial 
edicts,  and  acknowledged  by  the  Chinese  offi- 
cials. The  British  treaty  of  1858,  Art.  XII., 
contains  the  words,  “British  subjects, 
whether  at  the  ports  or  at  other  places,  de- 
siring to  build,  etc.”  More  than  once  Consuls 
and  Chinese  officials  have  interpreted  these 


5 


words  as  giving  the  right  to  reside  and  pur- 
chase property  in  the  interior.  In  some  treaties 
(Netherlands,  Austrian,  Spanish)  it  is  de- 
clared that  merchants  “ shall  not  be  at  liberty 
to  open  houses  of  business  or  shops  in  the  in- 
terior ; ” but  no  treaty  contains  such  restric- 
tions as  to  missionaries.  In  the  Chinese  text 
of  the  French  treaty  of  1858,  Art.  III.,  it  is 
stated,  “It  is  permitted  to  French  missiona- 
ries to  rent  and  purchase  land  in  all  the  prov- 
inces and  to  erect  buildings  thereon  at  pleas- 
ure.” Whatever  questions  others  may  have 
raised  about  this  clause,  the  Chinese  Govern- 
ment has  never  denied  its  authenticity  or 
validity.  Indeed,  Chinese  officials  of  their 
own  accord  have  often  extended  these  rights 
to  missionaries,  and  on  the  declaration  of  war 
between  China  and  Japan,  the  Chinese  For- 
eign Office  at  Pekin  addressed  to  the  Ministers 
of  foreign  countries  a memorandum  request- 
ing them  to  notify  missionaries  to  remain  at 
their  posts,  and  promising  all  such  the  protec- 
tion of  the  Chinese  Government.  The  rights 
of  merchants  and  traders  to  reside  and  pur- 
chase property  in  the  interior  are  far  less 
solidly  established  than  those  of  missionaries. 
Indeed,  the  Netherlands  treaty,  which  in  Art. 

III.  denied  to  merchants  the  right  of  carrying 
on  business  in  the  interior,  provided  in  Art. 

IV.  that  “Netherlands  missionaries  of  the 
Christian  religion,  intent  upon  the  peaceful 
propagation  of  the  Gospel  in  the  interior  of 

6 


China,  shall  enjoy  the  protection  of  the  Chi- 
nese authorities.”  I ask,  What  solemn  com- 
pact is  violated  by  the  presence  of  missiona- 
ries in  the  interior  ? 

But  it  is  asserted  also  that  the  missionary  is 
‘‘supported  and  protected  by  foreign  arms,” 
that  “the  evangelists  are  maintained  by  for- 
eign arms ; they  live  within  call  of  the  aveng- 
ing gunboat,  and  they  are  not  backward  in 
summoning  its  aid.”  The  Presbyterian  Board 
has  twenty-one  stations  in  China,  at  which 
missionaries  reside.  Of  these,  nine  at  the 
most  are  within  reach  of  gunboats.  The  great 
majority  of  missionaries  are  in  the  interior, 
and  I do  not  believe  that  Mr.  Brooks  can  cite 
one  instance  where  missionaries  alone  have 
summoned  a gunboat’s  aid.  There  may  have 
been  such,  but  I cannot  remember  one.  Large 
bodies  of  missionaries  in  China  are  opposed  on 
principle  to  doing  such  a thing,  and  of  those 
who  are  not,  the  majority  would  rather  suffer 
the  petty  difficulties  of  oppression  and  injus- 
tice that  resort  to  such  an  extreme  measure ; 
and  have  so  suffered  quietly,  or  resorted  only 
to  peaceful  representations  to  their  Consuls. 
But  doubtless  Mr.  Brooks  does  not  intend  to 
be  taken  literally  here.  If  he  does,  then  I 
have  only  to  say  that  his  statement  is  false, 
most  of  all,  his  declaration  that  the  missiona- 
ries are  not  backward  in  appealing  for  armed 
interference.  I suppose  he  means,  however, 

: by  these  reckless  statements,  only  that  “ mis- 

7 


sionaries  were  thrust  upon  him  (the  Chinese) 
through  treaties  exacted  by  foreign  coer- 
cion” and  that  the  Chinese  “Government 
protects  them  against  its  own  inclinations, 
and  against  the  sense  of  the  people,  through 
fear  of  foreign  pressure.”  He  neglects  to 
state  that  the  wars  which  were  terminated  by 
these  treaties  were  fought  for  the  sake  of 
commerce,  and  the  first  one,  as  the  Chinese 
maintain,  in  behalf  of  a ruinous  and  abhor- 
rent traffic ; that  no  war  has  ever  been  waged 
nor  any  battle  been  fought  for  the  imposition 
of  missionaries  upon  China  or  for  their  pro- 
tection. And  the  implication  of  this  second 
quotation  I have  just  made  from  his  article  is 
the  common  and  erroneous  one  that  the  Chi- 
nese Government  has  a peculiar  dislike  of  the 
missionaries  as  such,  while  it  has  learned  to 
endure  other  foreigners.  ‘ ‘ When  the  ordi- 
nary foreigner  is  tolerated,”  says  Mr.  Brooks, 
“they  (missionaries)  are  hated.”  “The 
trader,  the  consul  and  the  diplomat  have  won 
their  position.  They  are  not  liked,  but  they 
are  acqmesced  in.”  Nowit  is  significant  that 
in  the  very  document  to  which  Mr.  Brooks 
appeals  as  proposing  “the  best  and  only  means 
of  escape  ” from  present  difficulties,  the  Chi- 
nese Government  declares,  “The  Chinese 
Government  ...  is  not  opposed  to  the  work 
of  the  missions.”  Innumerable  edicts  and 
proclamations  have  commended  the  missiona- 
ries. I have  before  me  a copy  of  one  of  these 
8 


issued  by  the  Emperor  in  1844,  sixteen  years 
before  the  treaties  which  Mr.  Brooks  says 
thrust  missionaries  on  China.  The  Rescript 
of  Prince  Kung,  issued  in  1862,  declared: 
“The  missionaries  are  well-disposed  men,  and 
are  in  their  own  country  greatly  respected  by 
others,  and  whereas  their  first  object  is  to  in- 
struct men  to  do  good,  they  must  be  treated 
with  more  than  usual  high  consideration.” 
Scores  of  proclamations  to  the  same  effect 
have  been  issued  by  local  prefects.  One  is- 
sued in  1895,  by  the  Prefect  of  Nanking,  will 
serve  as  illustrative  of  many;  “Now  having 
examined  the  doctrine  halls  in  every  place 
pertaining  to  the  prefecture,  we  find  that 
there  have  been  established  free  schools  where 
the  poor  children  of  China  may  receive  in- 
struction; hospitals  where  Chinamen  may 
freely  receive  healing;  that  the  missionaries 
are  aU  really  good ; not  only  do  they  not  take 
the  people’s  possessions,  but  they  do  not  seem 
to  desire  men’s  praise.  . . . Although  China- 
men are  pleased  to  do  good,  there  are  none 
who  equal  the  missionaries.”  Prior  to  the  is- 
sue of  this  proclamation,  the  magistrate  in- 
vited the  missionaries  to  dinner,  and  treated 
them  with  imusual  honor.  If  it  is  said  that 
these  utterances  are  insincere,  and  exacted  by 
“ fear  of  foreign  pressure,”  it  may  be  replied 
that  there  are  too  many  cases  in  which  such 
suspicions  can  be  proved  to  be  unfotmded. 

I do  not  cite  these  edicts  as  worthy  of  aO' 
9 


ceptance  at  face  value,  but  only  as  supporting 
the  assertion  that  the  official  utterances  of 
the  Chinese  Government  are  favorable  to 
missions,  and  that  the  insinuation  that  Chris- 
tian missions,  as  such,  are  detested  by  .the 
Chinese  is  imjust.  Christianity  is  objected 
to  primarily  not  because  of  its  doctrines  or 
practices,  but  because  it  is  a foreign  religion, 
and  because  European  Governments  have  suc- 
ceeded in  deeply  impressing  its  foreign  con- 
nections upon  the  Chinese  mind  by  the  way 
they  have  made  it  a cat’s  paw,  and  pretext  of 
political  and  territorial  aggrandizement.  This 
view  is  easily  capable  of  proof.  The  very 
placards  and  publications  which  produce  anti- 
missionary disturbances  speak  of  the  mission- 
aries not  as  Christian  propagandists,  but  as 
foreign  intruders.  “Attack  and  beat  the  for- 
eigners.” “ Determinedly  destroy  the  West- 
ern men.”  These  are  specimens  of  Hunan 
mottoes.  “All  dealings  with  foreigners  are 
detestable.  These  men  have  no  fathers  or 
mothers.  Their  offspring  are  beasts,”  is  a 
sample  Canton  proclamation,  scattered  in  a 
city  where  the  Chinese  have  been  dealing 
commercially  with  foreigners  for  hundreds 
of  years.  Such  placards  are  issued  where 
there  are  no  missionaries.  As  soon  as  news 
arrived  that  Shashi  was  to  be  made  an  open 
port  in  1896,  anti-foreign  placards  were  posted 
over  the  city.  There  have  been,  and  accord- 
ing to  ex- Consul  Read  are,  no  missionaries  at 
10 


Shashi.  And  outrages  are  not  confined  to  the 
persons  of  missionaries.  Mr.  Margary  was 
not  a missionary,  and  it  is  the  Ministers,  not 
the  missionaries,  who  have  been  the  centre 
of  attack  in  Pekin. 

The  missionary  appears  prominently  be- 
cause he  is  everywhere.  He  is  the  only  for- 
eigner that  most  of  the  Chinese  see.  He  lives 
where  no  trader  will  go.  And  so  he  bears  the 
bnmt  of  anti-foreign  dislike.  For  this  his 
reward  is  the  sneers  and  ignorant  reviling  of 
men  like  Mr.  Brooks.  The  missionary  is  do- 
ing his  own  work,  but  b3  is  doing,  too,  the 
work  of  civilization.  He  is  its  vanguard. 
As  has  been  well  said,  “ China  has  been  opened 
professedly  by  treaty,  but  China  has  to  be 
opened  by  something  else  besides  a treaty. 
There  is  an  enormous  amoimt  of  personal  and 
friendly  contact  work  to  be  done  and  that  is 
being  done  by  missionaries  on  a scale  of  mag- 
nitude, with  a diffusiveness,  and  general  tact- 
fulness, that  entitle  them  to  commendation, 
and  not  censure.”  The  missionary  is  helping 
to  open  the  empire,  while  the  reactionary 
mandarins  want  to  keep  it  shut.  He  is  in- 
domitable. He  has  a motive  which  makes 
life  and  comfort  of  secondary  consequence. 
He  secures  a lodgment  where  civilians  would 
fail.  .“He  gets  access  to  the  people;  he  talks 
to  them  in  their  own  mother  tongue;  he 
shows  them  that  the  foreigner  is  not  the  hor- 
rid monster  he  has  been  pictured  to  them ; but 
11 


a human  being  like  one  of  tliemselves — a man 
who  knows  how  to  be  neighborly  and  courte- 
ous, and  pays  his  debts  and  can  be  trusted ; 
who  visits  the  sick  and  helps  the  poor,  and 
evidently  seeks  the  good  of  the  community 
where  he  is.  His  notions  as  they  consider 
them,  about  a resurrection  from  the  dead 
and  a future  life,  may  not  interest  them 
much;  but  the  man  himself  they  do  appre- 
ciate, and  they  say  that  if  all  foreigners  con- 
duct themselves  like  that,  they  cannot  be 
such  a bad  lot  after  all.  ” 

But  this  is  not  Mr.  Brooks’s  view.  In  his 
opinion,  missionaries  are  “ not  well  educated,” 
are  untactful,  careless  of  local  prejudice, 
speaking  a “bastard  Chinese,”  guilty  of 
“blundering  provocation,”  ignorant  of  “the 
philosophy  he  is  intent  on  overthrowing  or 
the  language  which  must  be  his  chief  weap- 
on,” bigoted  and  sectarian,  “enthusiastic 
girls  who  scamper  up  and  down  the  country.” 
I should  like  to  have  the  names  of  the  mis- 
sionaries in  China  with  whom  Mr.  Brooks  is 
personally  acquainted,  and  who  have  supplied 
him  with  that  knowledge  of  them  and  their 
disgraceful  defects  which  alone  can  entitle  a 
man  to  issue  such  a slanderous  representation. 
I know  more  than  two  hundred  missionaries 
in  China,  and  am  familiar  with  the  methods 
of  selection  and  the  requirements  of  the  vari- 
ous missionary  boards  and  societies  at  work 
there,  and  I have  met  also  many  foreigners 


12 


in  China  in  other  occupations,  and  I place  my 
knowledge  against  Mr.  Brooks’s  ignorance  in 
saying  that  the  average  missionary  is  far  bet- 
ter educated,  better  bred,  more  familiar  with 
the  people,  their  language  and  their  thought, 
and  infinitely  more  in  sympathy  with  them, 
than  the  average  foreigner,  and  that  no  other 
foreigners  in  China — merchants,  traders  or 
diplomats — are  superior  to  the  best  missiona- 
ries, and  very  few  of  them  their  equals.  W ith 
that  open-mindedness  which  Mr.  Brooks  so 
admires  in  others,  Mr.  Michie  avoids  any  such 
indiscriminate  abuse  as  Mr.  Brooks  allows 
himself  in  his  \xnrelieved  picture  of  mission- 
ary incompetency.  “The  great  service  which 
missionaries  have  rendered  to  the  cause  of 
knowledge  can  never  be  forgotten,”  wrote 
Mr.  Michie,  seven  years  ago.  “It  is  to  their 
labors  that  we  owe  what  we  know  of  the  Chi- 
nese history,  language  and  literature.  Mis- 
sionaries compiled  the  only  dictionaries  as  yet 
in  common  use ; a missionary  translated  the 
classics  into  English,  laying  the  whole  world 
imder  perpetual  obligation ; missionaries  have 
explained  the  Chinese  religions.  A mission- 
ary has  quite  recently  made  a valuable  con- 
tribution to  descriptive  anthropology,  the 
first  attempt  at  a systematic  analysis  of  the 
Chinese  character.  And,  turning  toward  the 
Chinese  side,  the  missionaries  have  the  credit 
of  awakening  thought  in  the  coimtry,  and 
their  great  industry  in  circulating  useful  and 
13 


Christian  knowledge  in  vernacular  publica. 
tions  of  various  sorts,  though  comparatively 
barren  of  result  in  its  main  purpose,  has 
spread  the  light  of  Western  civilization  far 
and  wide  in  the  Empire.  The  benefits  con- 
ferred on  China  by  these  literary  labors,  and 
especially  by  medical  missions”  (for  which 
Mr.  Brooks  has  not  one  appreciative  word), 
“are  fully  acknowledged  by  educated  Chinese 
who  have  no  leaning  toward  Christianity  as  a 
religion.”  Li  Hung  Chang  is  one  of  these. 
“ You  have  started,”  he  told  the  representa- 
tives of  missionary  organizations  in  New 
York,  Sept.  1, 1896,  “you  have  started  numer- 
ous educational  establishments  which  have 
served  as  the  best  means  to  enable  our  coun- 
trymen to  acquire  a fair  knowledge  of  the 
modern  arts  and  sciences  of  the  West.”  The 
missionaries  are  the  most  intelligent  foreign- 
ers in  China.  They  are  the  true  representa- 
tives of  the  West.  They  are  organizing  the 
schools  and  colleges  which  the  Chinese  them- 
selves are  founding.  They  have  been  inter- 
preters for  our  Consuls  and  Ministers.  For 
years  a missionary  did  the  work  of  the  Amer- 
ican Legation  in  Pekin,  while  others  bore  the 
title  and  the  credit.  And  these  are  not  merely 
exceptional  men.  Almost  all  missionaries  are 
required  to  pass  language  examinations,  and 
if  any  fail  to  acquire  the  Chinese,  they  are 
quietly  retired.  As  for  their  being  poorly  ed- 
ucated, almost  all  the  men  sent  from  America 


14 


are  college  graduates,  and  the  women  far 
better  educated  than  ordinarily  well  educated 
women  at  home.  Mr.  Brooks  could  learn 
many  things  from  a proclamation  of  the  Pre- 
fect of  Paotingfu  in  1895,  in  which  he  said. 
The  missionaries  “are  chosen  from  men  of 
superior  character  and  learning,  who,  after 
successfully  passing  an  examination,  are  suf- 
fered to  come  out  to  China.  Moreover,  none 
of  the  missionaries  of  these  societies  come  at 
the  commission  of  their  sovereigns,  nor  are 
they  animated  by  any  other  motive  than  to 
obey  the  last  command  of  Jesus,  who  bade  all 
His  followers  without  fail  to  preach  the  relig- 
ion far  and  wide,  and  thus  fully  attest  the 
sincerity  of  their  faith  and  love.  Refusing 
to  do  this,  though  members  of  the  society. 
He  could  not  recognize  them  as  of  the  high- 
est character.” 

Mr.  Brooks  condemns  the  missionaries  for 
their  hostility  to  ancestral  worship,  their  con- 
tempt for  Chinese  superstitions  like  fungshui, 
or  geomancy,  the  seclusion  and  secrecy  of 
their  work,  and  their  protection  of  their  con- 
verts. As  to  ancestor  worship,  a few  mis- 
sionaries plead  for  toleration,  but  the  great 
majority  believe  that  the  rites  of  worship  are 
idolatrous,  though  at  the  same  time  they  ap- 
preciate the  immense  value  of  the  spirit  of 
filial  piety,  and  endeavor  to  preserve  what  is 
not  idolatrous  in  it.  As  to  local  geomantic 
prejudices,  perhaps  headstrong  and  thought- 


less  men  have  sometimes  acted  unwisely  (can 
Mr.  Brooks  give  instances  ?) ; but  the  mission- 
ary is  the  last  person  to  view  the  animosity 
of  the  people  with  indifference.  He  wants  to 
gain  a hospitable  entrance  and  to  conciliate 
the  people,  and  succeeds  in  doing  so.  “To 
the  credit  of  the  missionaries,”  says  Mr. 
Michie,  who  denies  the  spontaneous  friendli- 
ness of  the  people  to  missionaries,  which  no 
one  asserts,  “it  must  be  said  that  wherever 
they  settle  they  gain  the  affection  of  many  of 
the  natives.”  As  to  the  secrecy  of  Christian 
work,  Mr.  Brooks  is  referring  evidently  to 
Roman  Catholic  missions,  as  he  singles  out 
“ especially  the  secrecy  of  the  confessional.” 
I shall  not  speak  of  this,  save  to  say  that 
Protestant  churches,  schools  and  hospitals  are 
ever  open  to  inspection,  and  invite  the  fullest 
scrutiny.  As  to  the  protection  of  converts, 
Mr.  Brooks  charges  that  they  come  usually 
from  the  lower  classes,  that  they  are  dishon- 
est debtors  who  want  protection  from  Chinese 
courts.  The  missionary  “fights  their  legal 
battles  for  them,  supplying  them  with  money 
and  advice,  and  securing  for  them  a sort  of 
consular  protection  by  means  of  which  their 
suits  are  transferred  from  Chinese  to  foreign 
courts.”  This  question  of  the  protection  of 
converts  is  to  many  missionaries  a difficult 
one.  Some  will  not  touch  the  lawsuits  of  na- 
tive converts  at  all.  Others  will  interfere 
only  in  cases  of  persecution  because  of  their 
16 


religion,  while  still  others  insist  that  these 
are  just  the  cases  in  which  there  should  be 
no  interference.  That  there  is  possibility  of 
abuse  here,  all  missionaries  admit.  One  of 
their  most  diflScult  tasks  is  to  sift  the  motives 
of  inquirers,  in  order  to  refuse  those  who 
want  to  join  the  Church  for  the  sake  of  such 
help.  The  practice  of  missionaries  is  not  uni- 
form as  yet,  but  the  principle  on  which  aril 
Protestant  missions  act  is  to  avoid  interfer- 
ence as  far  as  they  can  possibly  do  so,  and  to 
exclude  this  political  element  from  the 
Church.  This  is  a point  on  which  they  part 
widely  from  the  Roman  Catholics.  They 
flatly  refused  to  accept  the  privileges  secured 
to  the  Roman  Catholic  missionaries  by  the 
French  Minister  in  1899,  enlarging  their  po- 
litical influence  and  prescribing  certain  rights 
of  visit  and  communication  between  Catho- 
lic missionaries  and  provincial  officials,  which 
the  latter  had  previously  refused.  As  the 
bishops  of  the  Anglican  Communion  in  China 
wrote  to  Mr.  Conger,  “We  have  no  wish  to 
complicate  our  spiritual  responsibilities  by 
the  assumption  of  political  rights  and  duties, 
such  as  have  been  conceded  to  the  Roman 
Catholic  hierarchy.”  Mr.  Brooks’s  contemptu- 
ous opinion  of  the  character  of  the  converts 
has  been  sufficiently  belied  by  the  heroism 
with  which  scores,  perhaps  hundreds,  of  them 
have  met  death  without  denying  their  faith, 
when  a little  of  that  hypocrisy  which,  accord- 
17 


ing  to  Mr.  Brooks,  brought  them  into  the 
Church,  might  have  saved  them  in  their  time 
of  trial. 

For  this  time  of  trial,  Mr.  Brooks  holds  the 
missionaries  responsible.  “Of  the  needless 
causes  of  irritation  the  missionary  is  easily 
the  most  prominent.”  And  he  begins  his  ar- 
ticle by  discrediting  the  plea  which  the  mis- 
sionaries may  make,  that  the  political  press- 
ure of  the  West  and  the  seizure  of  territory 
and  “the  endless  demands  for  concessions  are 
the  real  occasions  of  this  semi-national  up- 
rising.” Well,  let  some  one  else  than  a mis- 
sionary be  heard.  Mr.  Barrett,  formerly 
Minister  to  Siam,  is  as  reliable  a witness  as 
Mr.  Brooks.  “The  spread  of  Christianity  in 
the  province  of  Shantung,”  he  says,  “met 
with  few  checks  until  the  commercial  spirit 
of  a great  European  country  apparently  in- 
spired it  to  seize  a portion  of  Chinese  terri- 
tory and  a port  in  this  province.  . . . When- 
ever it  was  my  privilege  to  disouss  anti- for- 
eign sentiment  with  intelligent  Chinese,  I 
found  invariably  that  they  placed  the  chief 
blame  upon  the  land-grabbing  spirit  of  the 
European  countries.”  Surely  the  Chinese 
Government  itself  is  competent  to  testify  on 
this  point,  and  tliis  is  its  judgment,  put  forth 
in  an  edict  issued  in  July:  “Since  the  first 
days  of  our  dynasty,  all  the  foreigners  com- 
ing to  China  have  been  invariably  treated 
with  liberality,  and,  coming  down  to  the  eras 
18 


of  Taokwang  (1821)  and  Hienfung  (1851),  we 
concluded  with  them  treaties  of  commerce 
and  intercourse  and  conceded  to  them  the 
right  of  propagating  Christianity.  Latterly, 
however,  the  foreigners  have  come  to  en- 
croach on  our  territories,  to  rob  us  of  our 
good  people  and  to  plunder  by  force  our  proj)- 
erties,  thus  trampling  under  their  feet  this 
favored  land  of  ours.  Thus  have  they  deeply 
wronged  us,  and  the  results  have  been  the 
destruction  of  their  churches  and  the  murder 
of  their  missionaries.” 

But  it  is  not  right  for  the  sake  of  argument 
to  assent  to  such  a partial  statement.  A dozen 
things  enter  into  anti-foreign  feeling  in  China. 
Its  sources  are  found  in  the  Chinese  officials, 
their  character  and  their  education,  in  the 
agents  of  foreign  powers,  in  the  Chinese  peo- 
ple, in  the  spirit  of  Western  peoples,  in  foreign 
trade  and  its  representatives,  in  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church,  in  the  Protestant  missiona- 
ries also,  and  in  the  history  of  China’s  rela- 
tions with  the  West.  It  is  imphilosophical  as 
well  as  imfair  to  single  out  any  one  of  these 
and  lay  the  blame  there  alone.  As  Mr.  Brooks 
himself  admits,  “ possibly  most  of  the  antag- 
onism is  fundamental.”  Assuredly  it  is,  but 
not,  as  he  says,  “inevitable.”  If  missions 
had  been  let  alone,  free  from  the  burden  of 
the  political  blunders  and  misdeeds  of  the 
West,  and  especially  free  in  the  case  of  Roman 
Catholic  missions  from  the  patronage  of  France 


and  now  of  Germany,  while  tlie  mistakes  of  in- 
dividuals and  of  the  movement  would  have 
caused  some  difficulty,  this  would  have  been 
easily  lived  down,  and  Christianity  would 
have  made  its  way,  as  it  has  been  making  its 
way  in  a hundred  fields  in  China,  without 
political  support  and  with  the  increasing  favor 
of  the  people. 

“In  that  case,”  Mr.  Brooks  might  ask  “why 
is  not  my  suggestion  acceptable,  namely,  that 
missionaries  should  be  divested  of  their  for- 
eign citizenship,  or  at  least  of  their  right  of 
political  protection  ? In  no  other  way  can 
the  political  element  in  their  propaganda  be 
destroyed.”  That  is  a question  which  I shall 
answer,  not  as  one  who  sympathizes  with  mis- 
sions, but  as  a citizen  of  the  State.  (1)  Such 
a course  would  be  treason  to  civilization.  The 
missionary  is  its  forerunner.  He  makes  way 
for  light  and  human  movement.  But  beside 
that,  to  remove  from  him  the  shelter  and  pro- 
tection of  Government  is  to  imperil  every  for- 
eigner. The  Chinese  does  not  stop  to  distin- 
guish. To  put  the  missionary  at  his  mercy 
and  to  acknowledge  the  right  of  the  Chinese 
to  expel  or  exclude  or  assassinate  him  is  to  take 
one  step  toward  gratifying  the  Chinese  desire 
to  exclude  all  foreigners.  (2)  Such  a course 
would  be  criminal.  It  would  be  the  announce- 
ment to  China  that  the  missionary  was  fair 
game.  “ Steal  his  property,  kill  him,  outrage 
the  women,”  it  would  proclaim.  “ We  will 
20 


not  interfere.  We  leave  them  to  your  barbar- 
ous and  hideous  cruelty  to  do  with  as  you 
please.”  If  certain  rights  had  never  been 
granted,  to  refuse  to  grant  them  now  would 
be  one  thing.  Having  been  granted,  to  take 
them  away  is  quite  a different  thing.  (3) 
Mr.  Brooks’s  proposal  is  childish  folly.  He 
might  as  sensibly  propose  that  missionaries’ 
passports  should  be  viseed  by  the  man  in  the 
moon.  This  country  does  not  denationalize 
its  citizens,  least  of  all  its  best  citizens. 
Wherever  in  this  wide  world  they  go,  they  go 
under  the  shelter  of  its  flag,  and  secure  in  its 
certain  protection.  (4)  Such  a proposal  is  in- 
solent effrontery.  The  missionary  is  to  be  de- 
nationalized. There  is  no  provision  for  nat- 
uralization of  foreigners  in  China.  The  mis- 
sionary is  to  be  a man  without  a country. 
The  American  harlot  in  Shanghai  can  fly  the 
Stars  and  Stripes  over  her  brothel.  The 
American  saloon-keeper  can  demand  the  Con- 
sul’s protection  in  Tien-Tsin.  But  the  mis- 
sionary, teaching,  preaching,  healing  the 
sick,  is  to  be  an  alien  and  a stranger.  Sydney 
Brooks  (I  invent  the  illustration ) selling  rum 
in  China  can  claim  the  rights  of  his  nation- 
ality and  stand  with  its  whole  power  behind 
him.  Phillips  Brooks  preaching  the  Gospel 
in  China  is  an  outcast,  a political  pariah.  I 
And  it  impossible  to  suppress  a feeling  of  stern 
indignation  at  such  an  infamous  and  con- 
temptible proposal,  infamous  and  contempti- 
21 


ble  in  its  view  not  so  much  of  the  rights  of 
missionaries,  as  of  the  duties  of  civilized 
States. 

But  Mr.  Brooks  alleges  that  something  must 
be  done  to  regulate  the  missionary.  ‘‘Until 
his  relations  with  the  Chinese  people  and  the 
Chinese  Government  are  radically  altered, 
there  can  be  no  hope  of  settled  peace.”  The 
shortest  answer  to  that  is  a flat  contradiction. 
Rather  let  the  European  nations  stop  using 
missions  as  the  “advance  agent  of  annexa- 
tion.” Let  them  deal  honorably  and  firmly 
with  China.  Let  them  repent  of  their  folly 
in  throwing  away  the  unparalleled  opportu- 
nity for  peaceful  reformation  presented  in 
1898,  by  the  Emperor  and  Kang  Yu  Wei — an 
opportunity  produced  by  missions — and  atone 
by  helping  China  to  break  with  her  iron  con- 
servatism and  shake  loose  her  grave  clothes. 

And,  lastly,  and  not  to  follow  Mr.  Brooks 
beyond  this,  even  into  his  curious  appeal  to 
the  early  history  of  Christianity,  the  mission- 
ary’s influence,  he  holds,  is  subversive,  and 
his  propaganda  will  have  revolutionary  effects. 
In  a sense,  this  is  not  true.  The  missionary’s 
work  is  not  destructive.  It  follows  the  lines 
of  national  character  and  qualification.  Chris- 
tianity has  adapted  itself  to  more  peoples,  and 
more  diverse  peoples,  than  any  other  religion, 
and  it  is  compatible  with  any  orderly  and 
righteous  government,  of  whatsoever  form. 
It  does  not  attack  the  Chinese  political  system 
22 


or  social  life.  Yet  in  a sense  the  cl>arge  is 
true.  Christianity  is  a power  of  upheaval 
and  renovation.  It  turns  the  world  upside 
down.  It  begets  wrath  againsfr  injustice, 
eagerness  for  liberty,  impatience  with  ignor- 
ance and  sloth,  and  passion  for  progress.  It 
has  done  this  in  China.  It  will  continue  to 
do  this  in  China,  whether  in  war  or  in  peace, 
with  the  sympathy  of  the  Christian  nations 
or  with  the  petty  criticism  and  futile  opposi- 
tion of  newspaper  publicists.  That  is  its  mis- 
sion in  the  world.  In  his  naive  language, 
the  Prefect  of  Paotingfu  suggests  that,  if  men 
do  not  perceive  it  and  are  not  in  sympathy 
with  it,  they  cannot,  by  the  judgment  of 
Jesus,  be  regarded  “as  of  the  highest  char- 
acter.” 


[Reprinted  from  The  Churchman, 
August  25,  1900.] 


Form  776 


